Yet again, another dubious bit of silliness finds its way into FINRA's published annals. To be clear, it's not silliness for the associated person Claimant; to the contrary, it's about as critical an issue as there is. The Claimant wants to clear his name. He wants something expunged from his industry record. That being said, we walk into the FINRA Dispute Resolution hearing room (with the Dylanesque pencil in our hand) but we emerge not knowing what the hell is going on. Frankly, there ought to be a law against you coming round.
Claimant's request for expungement of the information on his Form U5 depends on the meaning of "investment related" misconduct. The context here is a bit unusual as he held a license that he did not use as part of his employment as an analyst and had no involvement with retail customers. With many years of experience supervising brokers and retail branch offices, Claimant's expert witness offered a narrow meaning of "investment related" in keeping with his experience on the sales side. However, with the laudable goal of providing disclosure to the public, those regulating the securities industry prefer a broad meaning as evidenced by the multiple court cases, FINRA disciplinary actions, and consent letters cited by Respondent. Hence the Arbitrator found that Respondent made appropriate and accurate entries on the Form U5 and Claimant's request must fail.
Series 79 - Investment Banking Representative ExamThe Series 79 exam - the Investment Banking Representative Exam - assesses the competency of an entry-level registered representative to perform their job as an investment banking representative.The Series 79 exam measures the degree to which each candidate possesses the knowledge needed to perform the critical functions of an investment banking representative, including advising on or facilitating debt or equity securities offerings through a private placement or a public offering and mergers and acquisitions.Candidates must pass the Securities Industry Essentials (SIE) exam and the Series 79 exam to obtain the Investment Banking Representative registration. For more information about the SIE and Series 79 exams, refer to FINRA Rule 1210 and FINRA Rule 1220(b)(5).
Permitted ActivitiesCovered activities include advising on and/or facilitating the following:
See: "Key Questions" #2 and #3 at https://www.finra.org/registration-exams-ce/qualification-exams/series79not include persons who actively market the offering and interact with investors or potential investors, such as a person who is engaging in road show activities. Such a person would also need to be registered as a General Securities Representative (SIE + Series 7 exam) or Private Securities Offerings Representative (SIE + Series 82 exam) depending on the type of offering being made.. . .If you are only engaged in selling the offering or actively marketing the offering to investors or potential investors, the General Securities Representative (Series 7) registration is sufficient. However, if you want to engage in activities such as preparing a marketing plan or advising on a marketing plan prepared by a sales team or developing and/or contributing information for marketing materials, you would also need to be registered as an Investment Banking Representative by passing the Series 79 exam.
Pertains to securities, commodities, banking, insurance, or real estate (including, but not limited to, acting as or being associated with a broker-dealer, issuer, investment company, investment adviser, futures sponsor, bank, or savings association).
held a license that he did not use as part of his employment as an analyst and had no involvement with retail customers.
Narrow? Broad meaning? Investment related? License not used? No retail? We're supposed to apply those concepts to what exactly? The Decision doesn't disclose what Credit Suisse said or didn't say about Yang's conduct on his Form U5 or CRD. We don't know anything beyond that Yang held a license that he did not use and that he had no interaction with retail customers. Yeah, that's all really, really helpful. Like I groused about above, what's the point of even publishing such nonsense?laudable goal of providing disclosure to the public, those regulating the securities industry prefer a broad meaning as evidenced by the multiple court cases, FINRA disciplinary actions, and consent letters cited by Respondent. . .